January 25th, 2013
I didn’t participate in Occupy, and I’m not a member of a regulated militia. I’m pointing out, as somebody on the sidelines, that when there was an actual need to protect the general public using the right to bear arms against a tyrannical action of the Federal government, that the rights given by the 2nd Amendment failed.
The 1st Amendment (unlike the second) doesn’t place limitations on the use of the rights stated in that Amendment. The first isn’t written “Congress shall make no law … or the right of the GUN OWNER to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The 2nd Amendment is there to guarantee all the other Amendments and freedoms of All Americans… right? Where was the well regulated militia that the 2nd Amendment specifically states is the purpose of those gun ownership rights on the days when riot police directed by coordinated federal government effort came to take down the camps of the peaceably assembled petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances?
If the 2nd Amendment only exists to protect the 2nd Amendment then it is a rather useless Amendment. If on the other hand it is truly there to guarantee our rights and freedoms, shouldn’t the militias have been there to stop an unconstitutional action violating the explicit First Amendment rights of their fellow State citizens?
The First Amendment of United States Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Second Amendment of United States Constitution:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.